The Will of all Persons of the trinity would always be in full agreement, correct?Did Jesus have a will?... Sure he did... Scripture even say so, and he could have done what he said
Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
But he didn't come down from heaven to carry out his will but the will of the Father who sent him... Brother Glen
John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Was It Possible For Jesus To Sin?
- Thread starter tyndale1946
- Start date
- Status
John Gill explains it better than I ever could... Brother Glen
not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me;
that is, not to do his own will, as separate from his Father's, and much less as contrary to it; otherwise he did come to do his own will, which, as God, was the same with his Father's, he being one with him in nature, and so in power and will; and though his will, as man, was distinct from his Father's, yet not repugnant, but resigned unto it: and this will he came to do, was to preach the Gospel, fulfil the law, work miracles, and obtain the eternal redemption and salvation of his people. What the above Jewish writer F14 objects to this part of the text is of very little moment: whose words are;
``moreover, what he says, "not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me", shows, that he that sent, is not one and the same with him that is sent, seeing the will of him that is sent, is not as the will of him that sends.''
It is readily granted that they are not one and the same person; they are two distinct persons, which sending, and being sent, do clearly show; but then they are one in nature, though distinct in person, and they agree in will and work. Christ came not to do any will of his own different from that of his Father's; nor do these words imply a difference of wills in them, much less a contrariety in them, but rather the sameness of them.
I agree that there are many Jews who revere the OT scriptures, as they are still looking for their Messiah to come. We can read in Romans 11 where God will graft in the believing Jews. I see that as going on now and will continue to do so until the Lord returns upon His second advent.
Could the Christ have asked the Father to rescue Him? No. Why? His crucifixion, burial and resurrection had to take place to fulfill all prophecies concerning His earthly life. He was in complete union with the Father, and He came, not to do His fill, but the will of the One who sent Him, His Father.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
Then how does this verse fit your theology? "Saying, 'Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done,'" (Luke 22:42).
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
From your response, the answers appear to be No; Yes; (per scripture?). The problem remains that Jesus suggests he very well could pray thus to the Father. This has yet to be explained. Further, in the Garden, he is seeking a way for the Father to “remove this cup from” him. Their two wills appear to be at odds.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
This sounds not just a little confused, but very much so. The Jewish writer points out the problem rather clearly, but the apologist seems to ignore it almost entirely.John Gill explains it better than I ever could... Brother Glen
not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me;
that is, not to do his own will, as separate from his Father's, and much less as contrary to it; otherwise he did come to do his own will, which, as God, was the same with his Father's, he being one with him in nature, and so in power and will; and though his will, as man, was distinct from his Father's, yet not repugnant, but resigned unto it: and this will he came to do, was to preach the Gospel, fulfil the law, work miracles, and obtain the eternal redemption and salvation of his people. What the above Jewish writer F14 objects to this part of the text is of very little moment: whose words are;
``moreover, what he says, "not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me", shows, that he that sent, is not one and the same with him that is sent, seeing the will of him that is sent, is not as the will of him that sends.''
It is readily granted that they are not one and the same person; they are two distinct persons, which sending, and being sent, do clearly show; but then they are one in nature, though distinct in person, and they agree in will and work. Christ came not to do any will of his own different from that of his Father's; nor do these words imply a difference of wills in them, much less a contrariety in them, but rather the sameness of them.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
So, we have Jesus willing to do the Father’s will, but with the stated ability (or right?) to call on the Father who would willingly do Jesus’ will. Would any of these options be sin? One option (or set of options) would not fulfill Scripture (we now know), but would that constitute sin?Did Jesus have a will?... Sure he did... Scripture even say so, and he could have done what he said
Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
But he didn't come down from heaven to carry out his will but the will of the Father who sent him... Brother Glen
John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Another aspect of this is that Jesus does not claim the ability to call on angels directly. Could this be an indication that he is more “emptied” of his divine status (exhibited even more humility) than some admit? If he were to call the whole thing off, why not do so directly?
The Christ knew that the moment He ingested the cup of His Father's wrath in the Garden, He would then have His Father withdraw His hand from Him. However, at the same time, He knew He had a task to do, and that was to fulfill the scriptures that spoke of His cross work.
The Christ knew that anything He asked the Father, the Father would do it. Yet, the Son also knew that His will was to do the will of His Father. Theoretically, I guess He could have, but theologically, He could not. He would not violate the will of the Father.
Jesus was speaking from his Humanity as that point in history, as He would always be in full agreement with the Father in all things, as they are both equally God!
We have to understand that Jesus was facing the burden of becoming sin for us, to endure the full wrath of god that we all deserved, and as the sacrificial lamb of God, would have the father for those 3 hours treat Him as a sinner, and THAT is what he was reacting against!
As a young apprentice carpenter, I wonder what Jesus said when he hit his thumb with a hammer?
You know Baptist come up with the strangest questions... An old brother in our church after the sermon asked the pastor... Do you think Adam had a belly button?... The preacher said well brother do you have a belly button?... He said I do... Well then if you have a belly button, then I guess Adam had one too!... Now to answer your question about Jesus and the hammer... He probably said, ouch... Now some of us might have said, #$@&%*!... Brother Glen
atpollard
Well-Known Member
You know Baptist come up with the strangest questions... An old brother in our church after the sermon asked the pastor... Do you think Adam had a belly button?... The preacher said well brother do you have a belly button?... He said I do... Well then if you have a belly button, then I guess Adam had one too!... Now to answer your question about Jesus and the hammer... He probably said, ouch... Now some of us might have said, #$@&%*!... Brother Glen
I was thinking of this article ...
Even though you’re a good Christian, you probably get angry once in a while. Hey, shoot happens.
But real believers know never to say a cuss word, even in their worst moments. Using the world’s most powerful computer, we’ve generated a list of the top 7 replacement swears to begin using in your everyday life, for a closer walk with Christ.
Well, what are you waiting for? Go stub your toe and try one of these puppies on for size!
1.) “By the beard of Spurgeon!” – What could be more wholesome than swearing by the blessed beard of C.H. Spurgeon himself? Advanced Christians can even swear by his cigars.
2.) “What in the literal worldwide Flood?” – Good F-bomb replacements are hard to come by. Now you can season your speech with salt by making a reference to the literal, 40-day, worldwide flood in the book of Genesis.
3.) “Holy Chick-fil-A, Bibleman!” – Just mash up every Christian pop culture reference you can think of into one solid exclamation. It’s how we write most of our articles on the Bee, too!
4.) “Go straight to Sheol, you son of a Baal!” – You can basically say the same thing as a secular swear, but show off your Bible knowledge at the same time by replacing words with biblical references. Spiritual points for everyone!
5.) “Aw, McGee and me!” – The old Focus on the Family series even had an exclamation mark right in the title, so it comes ready made for use as a sanctified swear word. Plus, “Adventures in Odyssey” just doesn’t flow off the tongue.
6.) “Why don’t you go eat a Testamint!” – Rather than telling someone to eat something unsanitary, suggest that they eat the sanctified breath mint.
7.) “May you be forced to sing ‘Trading My Sorrows’ for all eternity!” – A curse this evil is to be used sparingly. Use this curse only for the worst of your enemies, like Democrats or charismatics.
Well? Get to cussin’, Christian!
But real believers know never to say a cuss word, even in their worst moments. Using the world’s most powerful computer, we’ve generated a list of the top 7 replacement swears to begin using in your everyday life, for a closer walk with Christ.
Well, what are you waiting for? Go stub your toe and try one of these puppies on for size!
1.) “By the beard of Spurgeon!” – What could be more wholesome than swearing by the blessed beard of C.H. Spurgeon himself? Advanced Christians can even swear by his cigars.
2.) “What in the literal worldwide Flood?” – Good F-bomb replacements are hard to come by. Now you can season your speech with salt by making a reference to the literal, 40-day, worldwide flood in the book of Genesis.
3.) “Holy Chick-fil-A, Bibleman!” – Just mash up every Christian pop culture reference you can think of into one solid exclamation. It’s how we write most of our articles on the Bee, too!
4.) “Go straight to Sheol, you son of a Baal!” – You can basically say the same thing as a secular swear, but show off your Bible knowledge at the same time by replacing words with biblical references. Spiritual points for everyone!
5.) “Aw, McGee and me!” – The old Focus on the Family series even had an exclamation mark right in the title, so it comes ready made for use as a sanctified swear word. Plus, “Adventures in Odyssey” just doesn’t flow off the tongue.
6.) “Why don’t you go eat a Testamint!” – Rather than telling someone to eat something unsanitary, suggest that they eat the sanctified breath mint.
7.) “May you be forced to sing ‘Trading My Sorrows’ for all eternity!” – A curse this evil is to be used sparingly. Use this curse only for the worst of your enemies, like Democrats or charismatics.
Well? Get to cussin’, Christian!
https://babylonbee.com/news/top-7-replacement-swears-for-true-believers/
... and I was thinking that Jesus could probably have done even better.
(Why on earth would Adam have had a belly button? From what umbilical cord?)
I was thinking of this article ...
Even though you’re a good Christian, you probably get angry once in a while. Hey, shoot happens.
But real believers know never to say a cuss word, even in their worst moments. Using the world’s most powerful computer, we’ve generated a list of the top 7 replacement swears to begin using in your everyday life, for a closer walk with Christ.
Well, what are you waiting for? Go stub your toe and try one of these puppies on for size!
1.) “By the beard of Spurgeon!” – What could be more wholesome than swearing by the blessed beard of C.H. Spurgeon himself? Advanced Christians can even swear by his cigars.
2.) “What in the literal worldwide Flood?” – Good F-bomb replacements are hard to come by. Now you can season your speech with salt by making a reference to the literal, 40-day, worldwide flood in the book of Genesis.
3.) “Holy Chick-fil-A, Bibleman!” – Just mash up every Christian pop culture reference you can think of into one solid exclamation. It’s how we write most of our articles on the Bee, too!
4.) “Go straight to Sheol, you son of a Baal!” – You can basically say the same thing as a secular swear, but show off your Bible knowledge at the same time by replacing words with biblical references. Spiritual points for everyone!
5.) “Aw, McGee and me!” – The old Focus on the Family series even had an exclamation mark right in the title, so it comes ready made for use as a sanctified swear word. Plus, “Adventures in Odyssey” just doesn’t flow off the tongue.
6.) “Why don’t you go eat a Testamint!” – Rather than telling someone to eat something unsanitary, suggest that they eat the sanctified breath mint.
7.) “May you be forced to sing ‘Trading My Sorrows’ for all eternity!” – A curse this evil is to be used sparingly. Use this curse only for the worst of your enemies, like Democrats or charismatics.
Well? Get to cussin’, Christian!
https://babylonbee.com/news/top-7-replacement-swears-for-true-believers/
... and I was thinking that Jesus could probably have done even better.
(Why on earth would Adam have had a belly button? From what umbilical cord?)
I see one that fits my case... “By the beard of Spuuurrrrrrrgeon!”... Yeah!... That made me feel better!... Brother Glen
You are trying to have God the Father and God the Son butting heads concerning whose will wins out. The Son clearly and explicitly stated He came to do the will of the Father, and to accomplish it.[John 4:34]
Was Jesus obedient unto death even the death of the cross because he was the Son of God OR did the Son of God , Jesus, through sufferings, even the suffering of his soul being sorrowful unto death see Matt 26:38 & Heb 5:7, learn, The Obedience, that is become obedient unto death even the death of the cross.
Would anyone agree with me, that, the obedience learned, was; Obedience of faith>? Both words BTW being nouns.
> consider the language of Heb 5:7 Is the Son faithfully crying out to God the Farther to be faithful to the the promise of God who cannot lie?
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, John 5:21
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; John 5:26
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; Titus 1:2
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Heb 5:7
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; Gal 1:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb 11:1
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: 2 Tim 1:10
Would anyone agree with me, that, the obedience learned, was; Obedience of faith>? Both words BTW being nouns.
> consider the language of Heb 5:7 Is the Son faithfully crying out to God the Farther to be faithful to the the promise of God who cannot lie?
For as the Father raiseth up the dead, John 5:21
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; John 5:26
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; Titus 1:2
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Heb 5:7
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; Gal 1:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb 11:1
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: 2 Tim 1:10
Some seem to think God the Father just told jesus that he had to go do it, and Jesus was taken to the Cross kicking and fighting back all the way. The truth is God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit fully agreed on how this was to be done!
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
We can all agree on the result, as we know it and depend on it for our salvation. It is the theoreticals central to the discussions that concern me, or rather some of the strongly worded assertions regarding them. They seem to brush aside the reality that Jesus lived a life so “self-emptied” it is hard to imagine.
If I read it right, his divinity did not overpower his humanity as some seem to suggest. He did not come to live as God. On the contrary, his divinity so humbly acquired humanity that he lived totally dependent on the Father. Perhaps he could not sin because of his divinity; but he did not sin because he lived totally dependent on the Father. Had angels not attended him after the excruciating wilderness temptations, he would have died. Had angels not attended him after wrestling in prayer in the garden, there would have been no cross. The Father intervened, not the Son. The Son, though God, did not come as God, but as a man dependent on God. The agony he suffered and the death he died we cannot truly grasp, nor even the life he lived. Paul wanted to know Christ in all aspects (Phil 3:10 and surrounding verses), and likely came as close as could be, but he lived a life of hardship for the sake of Christ few want.
His nature of being fully God never changed....
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
I never said it did. My points are regarding the Incarnation and the mission of the Messiah, which your focus does not adequately address. I appreciate your wanting to defend the divinity of the Son, but your comment was a non sequitur. What I described deepens my awe of God the Son; it in no way diminishes it or him.
- Status